SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Jeremy Patzer

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Conservative
  • Cypress Hills—Grasslands
  • Saskatchewan
  • Voting Attendance: 67%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $112,746.42

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24
Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)
Madam Speaker, I am on the natural resources committee, and there were two bills that came to our committee. There were Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Bill C-49 came to us first. The government and the NDP were adamant that we had to do Bill C-50 first and then Bill C-49, but we knew that the Supreme Court had made its reference ruling that C-49 had unconstitutional elements to it, so we proposed to get the Impact Assessment Act right first and do that first and foremost. That way we could pass Bill C-49 because we know that the provinces are looking forward to getting something like this done, and then move on to Bill C-50. The Liberals basically programmed the committee so we had to do Bill C-50 first and then do Bill C-49. It was done in such a fast fashion. We had industry representatives come in to say that they were not consulted. It is a complete dumpster fire. I am wondering if my colleague has any explanation as to why the government would want to ram forward something rather than doing our job as parliamentarians, which is to make sure that we get the bill right and make sure we pass a constitutional bill in the first place.
222 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24
Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)
  • May/27/24 1:22:01 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-49 
Madam Speaker, I look forward to resuming my speech and to hearing what my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has to say, as I am splitting my time with him today. I work on the natural resources committee, and we are the ones who went through the study of this bill. From that perspective, in my speech before, I was setting the record straight, because there was some misrepresentation as to how we went through the entire process of the bill. Having gone through it, as I had said, and I will say it again today, the Liberal government has made a mess and it continues to refuse to clean it up. It did that with its Impact Assessment Act, which the Supreme Court said was unconstitutional, and now those same Liberals are once again right on track to interfere with local industry and provincial jurisdiction. In this case, we are talking about the Atlantic fishing industry. We have heard from many fishing groups that are deeply concerned about a lack of consultation and a lack of protection for their livelihood. They do not feel that enough has been done to rule out the potential for major irreversible damage to their industry. The government is ignoring them, but we need to hear what they have to say for themselves. I am going to continue sharing what a few more witnesses told us at committee. Michael Barron, from the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association, said: In an industry that is a major economic driver for Nova Scotia, the lack of consultation has not gone unnoticed by all fish harvester associations throughout Nova Scotia. Dr. Kris Vascotto, from the Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement, said: Historically, members have relied on the federal government to protect the interests and viability of their enterprises. They have worked to support science and refine rules for the fishery, and they have tried to be part of the solution. In turn, they rely on the government to make good decisions. Perhaps this is why members are surprised and dismayed by the content of the bill before you. Collectively, we understand that, as a planet, we are facing profound challenges related to climate change risk, and we realize that we all have an important role in finding a viable solution. However, rushing poorly thought-out legislation to govern an industrial marine development that remains largely in an experimental stage for Atlantic waters and lacks proper safeguards to ensure a viable and resilient coastal economy is myopic. There are some important things that so many fishing groups mention consistently. They made it clear that they were absolutely not against renewable or wind energy per se, but they wanted acknowledgement that there were still many unknown factors and potentially negative impacts on ocean wildlife and their ecosystems. If that happens, it would devastate their industry and it may not be reversible. There is a witness who addressed this concern. Dr. Kevin Stokesbury, dean of the School for Marine Science and Technology, shared his thoughts at the committee. He said: Developing the wind farms will add hard structure, thousands of small islands, throughout these areas, islands that pull energy out of the system. This will change the environment: the sea floor makeup, the current structure, the acoustics both during construction and operation, and the electromagnetic field. All these will impact the associated flora and fauna of the areas. This will happen on the scales of the individual turbine, which is centimetres to kilometres; the wind farm fields, from tens to hundreds of kilometres; and the entire eastern seaboard. It will affect the fisheries. Some will be able to harvest within the wind farms; some will not. All will have to navigate through or around them. Right now, some wind farms are beginning to monitor the marine environment and the animals associated with them, but it is a disjointed effort. There is no overall framework to coordinate the different scientific research or push for broader ecosystem understanding. What we have heard from local witnesses in Atlantic Canada is that Bill C-49 has been rushed and lacks the necessary safeguards for the fishing industry.
697 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 307 - May/2/24
Mr. Jeremy Patzer
  • May/2/24 8:46:14 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-49 
Mr. Speaker, we found out at committee that, for Bill C-49, the Liberals did not even bother to consult first nations when they were pushing the Atlantic accord bill through. It is no surprise. If we look at what Canadians think, 65% of Canadians think the government does a very poor or a poor job at developing a shared long-term vision for Canada's energy future. This is from a survey that was released just today. Liberals are out of touch. The Indian Act also takes control away from indigenous communities by giving reserve land and all dollars to the federal government, so they have to go begging to the federal government to get access to those funds from projects on their own land. The first nations resource charge is something that can make a huge difference for communities who decide it works for them. Conservatives want to deliver this for indigenous people. Will the government?
158 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 307 - May/2/24
Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)
Madam Speaker, it is pretty tough to follow the production we just saw from the member for Winnipeg North. He is something else. We will just leave it at that. I am a member of the natural resources committee, and I think it is really important that we talk about the process by which we have arrived here today. There were two bills that were sent to our committee: Bill C-49 first, and then Bill C-50. What is important here is this. For a number of years, across multiple parliamentary sessions, Conservatives have been warning the government about its unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act, and over time the Liberals kept denying it and saying it was not unconstitutional. Then the Supreme Court comes along and in a reference case ruling says that the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69 from a previous parliament, is largely unconstitutional. It is important to note and make mention here that in the history of Canada no government has ever ignored a reference ruling from the Supreme Court. As we have this debate here today, I think it is extremely important that we start out with that particular point. I think if we were to ask my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, when he gives his speech after me, because I will be splitting my time with him, he might even agree that for a very long time the government has ignored this particular point. The government needs to take this opportunity at report stage to be absolutely clear about the date and time when it will fix the Impact Assessment Act, because a big part of the issue around Bill C-49 is that it contains no less than 35 direct references to the unconstitutional parts of the Impact Assessment Act. It is as if the Liberal government has a desire to pass unconstitutional legislation and regulations. We have seen that with its plastics ban, which was also ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Conservatives also warned that it would be a problem. When we are tasked with passing a piece of legislation that is required for Atlantic Canada to be able to develop its offshore wind resources, we need to make sure that we are passing a piece of legislation that is abundantly clear and would create all the absolute certainty that is needed in Atlantic Canada. Of course, there is a consultation process that needs to go on. At committee, all we heard from witnesses, one after the other, was that they were not consulted. This is particularly true of people who are in the fishing industry, which as we know is the absolute staple industry of Atlantic Canada. That is an important place where we need to start. I hope that at some point here we will get some clarity and certainty from government members about when that will happen. We gave them many opportunities at committee to tell us when, yet we never got an answer from them. I want to go back to the fishing organizations that spoke at great length to us at committee. I will start off by quoting Katie Power from FFAW-Unifor, who stated: To clarify, FFAW, in its representation of the owner-operator fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, has not been consulted or engaged, by governments or otherwise, on Bill C-49 but serves to be directly impacted by it. In the absence of the appropriate consultation framework not currently built into this bill for adherence, undue conflict amongst fisheries stakeholders, other ocean user groups, future investors and developers of offshore wind energy is inevitable. FFAW has been thoroughly engaged in the ongoing regional assessment for offshore wind. Participation on both a staff and harvester level has been immense, reflective of the magnitude of potential impacts and indicative of a desire to be involved. However, this regional assessment has no application in this legislation, and the recommendations of the regional assessment committee to governments are not legally binding. This, coupled with the complete lack of communication from local governments, leaves the fishing industry with no reassurance, no safeguards for mitigation and an overall lack of trust or faith in the process as it is presently being pursued. I have another quote, from Ruth Inniss from the Maritime Fishermen's Union, who stated: The bill, as it stands before us, is sorely lacking in protections for the fishing industry, the aquatic species we depend on and the livelihoods that depend on fishing. Simply put, while we support the expansion of clean energy, it should not be at the expense of the fishing industry. I have more quotes that I would like to read, but I realize I am near the end of my time for today. I will finish with one quote, quickly. Ms. Inniss added: Rushing poorly thought-out legislation to govern an industrial marine development that remains largely in an experimental stage for Atlantic waters, and legislation that lacks proper safeguards to ensure a sustainable, viable and resilient coastal economy, is extremely irresponsible.
844 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border